Profile of robertmikael

"A little further"? How much further. 30 Km gets them TO Moscow. not all the way around, which implies a depleted, attrited and exhausted Army Group Center must now wage an assault against the most heavily defended point in the Soviet Union, around which were massing the forces that were great enough to counter attack.

The Germans did not need to make a complete circumvallatio to make serious damage. That was not even the case in Leningrad (for example the Finns could have done more damage, but they chose not to do it). The Germans could have only destroyed the most important roads and railways to Moscow to make an impact. The Russians soldiers and civilians need food, and they also need ammunitions and new weapons to hold back the Germans.

1) Dunkirk was a great morale boost, but it's loss would not have lead to any sort of British capitulation. The lack of a morale boost is not the same as a hit to morale. And after the fall of all of France there really wasn't much of a greater morale hit to be taken at that point.

Of course the British would not have capitulated, but it would not have been good for British morale if the Germans would have killed or captured the whole force in Dunkirk, instead the Brits got a morale boost from this, when they escaped from Dunkirk

2) The Germans really weren't all that interested in North Africa and never committed much to it, nor do I think they could have/would have in May 1940. They had just conquered France and were looking to England. Even when they did "care" all you got was the Afrika Corps, which was not that much of a commitment.

Yes, I agree, but I think this was a great mistake made by Hitler and the other German military leaders. They should have sent a bigger force to Africa in the late summer of 1940, and driven the Brits out of North Africa.

3) Barbarossa could only have been started so much sooner. The rasputitza (mud season when the roads become impassable) existed in the spring as well as the fall. And this would only have helped if you think that it was the winter that stopped the Germans, and not the fSoviet ability to mobilize so many more men as fast as they did. Or that defeat of the Russians necessitated a supply chain far in excess of what was expected to be needed. As one Russian general said about the theory that the winter was so aweful to the Germans, "we had to fight in it too".

Of course the weather was the same for both, but the Russians had better winter equipment and were better prepared for the winter. I also think the Germans would have advanced further if they would have started the Operation Barbarossa earlier. I do not know how fast they advanced per day or week, but if they would have started 5-6 weeks earlier, then they would have advanced so much further.

The Germans executed Barbarossa essentially as they planned it. it probably could not have gone any better. But they failed not because of the timing of Barbarossa but because they didn't understand how resilient their enemy was going to be. The Soviet Union had 14 million men with military experience who didn't show up in rolls of their strength.

So many of these theories are ask about how much better the Germans could have done it. But you don't get to have perfection No one seems to theorycraft the allied side. Zhukov could have done a more focused counter attack in Dec. of '41 instead of the broader front approach he used, and it would probably have destroyed Army Group Center already in 1941. Had Stalin permitted retreats more units would have remained operational through the fall of 1941. There are lots of "what ifs" on the allied side as well.

The most German leaders were of course too optimistic and were not completely aware of the long distances in Sovjet Union, which is a far bigger country than France. But the fact is that they advanced in Russia until the winter come, and probably they would have advanced further if they have started the attack earlier. How much better it would have been, we can never know, but better for sure.

They couldn't.

Sealion could never have worked. There is no "blitzkrieg" when you have to tow barges at 5-6 knots across 30-100 miles of open water and then have troops with no amphibious doctrine or training embark on contested beachheads. The British had lost much of their Army, but their Navy and Air Force was completely intact and after Norway was even stronger than that of the Germans. (The Battle of Britain was never a close thing.)

I agree that the Operation Sealion could never have worked, because the German Navy and Air Force was weaker than the British counterpart. But my opinion is that the Germans make two mistakes against the Brits (the third point is a consequence of this):
(1) Dunkirk 1940. If the Germans would have eliminated the force here, this would also have a huge moral impact on the Brits and other allies.
(2) Africa 1940. The Germans should have concentrated their energy right after the battle of France in North Africa and drive the Brits out of Egypt and Middle East (instead of the invasion of Great Britain). This could have worked if they had done this when the Brits were unprepared and the Italians have not yet proven themselves to be the Italian army as we know it. Thus the Germans would probably not been involved in the Balkans and Greece, and Mussolini would concentrate his energy on Africa instead (and not make the mistake to be involved in the Balkans).
(3) Sovjet Union 1941. If the Germans were not been forced to clean up the mess in Balkans after Mussolini and the Italian army, then the Germans could have started the Operation Barbarossa earlier, in the middle of May, that is 5-6 weeks earlier, and so have a little more time to advance in Sovjet Union before the famous winter of 1941-2. It was a mistake to lauch the attack as late as June 22.

A balance issue remain exactly the same weather it is reported by a person ranked number 1 or person ranked number 1.000

I agree that the balance issue is exactly the same, because both players play the same game and can see same things. But the more skilled player probably knows how to counter a certain thing that the opponent uses, when the other less-skilled player doesn't necessary know that. The more skilled player can have an answer to that what the other player says is "OP".

If the more skilled player has a counter to a specific thing that the other player claims is "OP", is that thing then "OP"? My answer is no, because it is a L2P-thing then.

Germany would probably have won war if they:
1) Had eliminated Hitler and the other Nazis. This is the most important thing that they should have done. Hitler and the other Nazis took stupid decisions.
2) Had given supreme command to Manstein.
3) Japan should never have declared war on USA. This would have forced Stalin to keep the divisions that saved Moscaw (1941) in Siberia. At least Germany should not have declared war on USA, and this would probably have kept USA out of the war in Europe.

Other more concrete mistakes by the Germans were:
1) Hitler should have permit Guderian to eliminate the Brits in Dunkerque 1940.
2) Hitler should have permit Guderian to advance towards Moscaw directly after he captured Smolensk in August 1941 (and not towards Kiev).
3) They should have given winter equipment to Wehrmacht before the winter 1941-2.